by Adebiyi Isreal
Over the last few months in Nigeria, the social media space has been agog about trademark and trademark related disputes, most especially amongst high profile persons; high profile? Anyway, media personalities. Nigeria’s entertainment industry has once again found itself at the center of a necessary conversation about intellectual property rights and the law which governs these rights.
The recent public disputes that shook the industry; mainly, the controversy involving Mr. Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as Very Dark Man (VDM), a Nigerian activist and social media Influencer and Mr. Linus Williams Ifejirika, popularly known as BLord, a Nigerian cryptocurrency entrepreneur and founder of the Blord Group over trademark identity and the recent renewed discuss around the Papa Ajasco character trademark issue brought up by Mr. Awoyinka Abiodun ( whom at one period performed the role/character ‘Papa Ajasco” officially linked to Wale Adenuga Productions, all led to one central point, trademarks.
A trademark is a unique symbol, word, or phrase that distinguishes a product or service and sets it apart in public and the commercial market. It is essential for building brand identity, earning consumer trust, and safeguarding intellectual property. A trademark is not merely a name. It is a legally protected identity tied to goodwill reputation and commercial value. Once a mark is registered, or even established through consistent commercial use the owner acquires the exclusive right to control how that identity is exploited in commerce. As a result of this, disputes around names, characters and personal brands often escalate beyond social media into legal tussles.
As expected, most Nigerians by default, take these issues as mere personal disagreements that should be sorted out with hopes that their emotions and sentiments stand as umpire, whilest the law takes the bench. These are not just mere issues that should be considered as disagreement. How awesome would it be, if Nigerians truly viewed the issue as it is; an issue of Intellectual property law, and majorly a question of proprietary rights.
The disagreement between VeryDarkMan and BLord reaffirms the position of the dictates of the law governing trademarks. Under the Trademarks Act, the law is settled that once an identity whether a name, phrase, or persona assumes commercial value, the question of ownership and the right of exploitation cannot be resolved on the basis of sentiment, public sympathy, or perceived popularity.
By virtue of Sections 5 and 6, exclusive rights to use and restrain unauthorized use are vested strictly in the registered proprietor, while Section 13 further holds that registration serves as prima facie evidence of title. Further, Sections 3 and 9 make it clear that protection is only available to marks that satisfy the statutory threshold of registrability and distinctiveness. The implication is straightforward and uncompromising. Hence, no matter how emotionally attached the public may be to a personality or identity, the law will not indulge sentiments. They will look to the register, the statute, and the evidence of compliance because, legally, as it stands, ownership is a function of rights properly secured.
The proprietary interests of Wale Adenuga Productions, together with the trademarked Papa Ajasco character, will be critically examined within the framework of intellectual property law. The character, as most Nigerians are aware, is a creation of Wale Adenuga Productions, developed through their body of work “PAPA AJASCO” spanning decades from media print to television series.
In intellectual property parlance the name, the character identity and the commercial exploitation attached to it fall within the legal control of the creator and his production structure through the combined protection of copyright and trademark laws. The recent claim by the current actor that he cannot survive because the Papa Ajasco identity has been trademarked and restricted from his personal use does not stand on firm legal pillars. The Nigerian law distinguishes clearly between the creator of a character and the individual who performs that role within a production. It is therefore worthy of note, that the mere act of performance is not a ground for the claim of ownership of a character name and identity.
This distinction becomes even more apparent when the historical reality of the franchise is put into consideration. The present actor is not the creator of the Papa Ajasco role because obviously, it is evident the character has moved across different actors over time. He is in fact the third actor (Sir. Peter Fatomilola is referenced as an earlier face of the role before transitions occurred) to embody the character since the early development of the series which traces back to the Ikebe Super comic era and subsequent television adaptations. The franchise itself has consistently demonstrated that characters can outlive the performers who play them. Several actors within the Papa Ajasco world have built independent careers beyond the identities they portrayed on the show.
Actors who played characters such as Pa James and Boy Alinco became recognizable figures in their own right and successfully expanded their careers outside the fictional identities that first introduced them majorly to audiences/the public. This further reinforces the fact that a character exists independently of any single performer. Globally, examples of this have been set in standard movies and blockbusters.
For mention, Tobey Maguire, whom was for many people, the defining Spider Man of a generation. Yet he does not own Spider Man and obviously the character continued and continues beyond him because the ownership resides elsewhere. The same applies to Superman. The pattern remains a change of faces but the Intellectual Property right of ownership does not change. This entire situation exposes not just a dispute, but a gap in how intellectual property is understood within the creative space. Just as much as people confuse relevance with rights, they also confuse visibility with ownership and when reality eventually sets in, it feels like injustice, when in truth, it is simply the law taking its course.
It is trite intellectual property law, that a character belongs to its creator while the performer contributes interpretation and performance within that framework. Unless contractual arrangements transfer proprietary rights, the performer does not acquire ownership of the character’s commercial identity.
On the issue of the aggrieved party seeking appropriate legal guidance before taking such role, it apparently holds no water. Recent public commentary has attempted to recast this issue as one of fairness particularly in relation to Mr. Abiodun Ayoyinka who is widely associated with the Papa Ajasco character. Some opinions expressed on social media suggest that had he engaged legal representation earlier the outcome might have been different or that the subsequent trademarking of the name was somehow inequitable. That position while emotionally appealing does not align with the foundational principles of intellectual property law.
Upon a careful review of the position of the law, it becomes clear that the role occupied by Mr. Abiodun Ayoyinka was that of a performer engaged to act and embody a character created by another. In the absence of any contractual provision transferring proprietary rights to him his legal standing remains that of an actor and not a rights holder. In actual fact, acting in a role even where the actor becomes the face most recognized by the public does not translate into ownership of the intellectual property underlying that role.
Identifying the key legal issues is as important as the scenarios that led to this whole conversation and public uproar. The real legal issues sit in a not so delicate spot and they are not as complicated as people make them seem. First is performance, which we all are aware gives visibility, recognition as well as cultural immortality. Out of all the benefits it offers, it does not give the benefit of ownership. The law has never for once treated performance as a basis for claiming proprietary rights over a character. At best, it gives you rights in your performance as a performer not in the character itself.
On another hand, the legal issue of trademark and the trademarked character is one to make mention of. The position of the law aforementioned above is clear and succinct that once a character name identity or persona has been commercialized and protected whether formally registered or strongly established in use it becomes a controlled asset. The owner is at liberty to decide how it is used, who uses it and under what conditions (exploitation generally). That control is not something that can be diluted simply because an actor became synonymous with the role.
Lastly, and this is the part many people do not want to accept the impossibility of ownership in this situation. Where a character already belongs to a creator you as a performer cannot walk into that structure and later claim ownership of that same character. It does not matter how long you played the role or how much the audience associates you with it. The law will always trace ownership back to creation not performance. Even if a lawyer had been involved from day one the reality would still remain the same. A lawyer can negotiate better fees better credit and possibly some level of participation in revenue. However, a lawyer cannot transfer ownership of a pre-existing character from the creator to the performer unless the creator willingly agrees to it which in most structured productions that simply does not happen. In all honesty, the real choice is not legal gymnastics and an attempt to maneuver the law in your favour as a performer but commercial demands that will make you benefit also as a performer in a justified manner. As sad as this may sound, the truth is as a performer, you either take the deal as the performer within someone else’s intellectual property creation or you walk away.
It is upon this backdrop that the argument that earlier legal intervention would have changed everything is dismissed and certainly considered as that which does not hold weight. It assumes there was something available to be claimed in the first place, which there was not, simply because, what existed was a role within an already owned and controlled creative property. The actions of Wale Adenuga in asserting control over the Papa Ajasco name through trademark structures therefore is in consonance with the law and not extraordinary or exploitative in the legal sense. They are exactly what the law anticipates a creator should do to protect a commercially valuable character. At the end of the day the law is not emotional and for creatives within the creative eco-system building their careers, it is important to accept that once you did not create it, understand your place within it and if ownership matters to you then you must negotiate for something that can actually be given, not something the other party does not have to offer.
In conclusion, the noise around this issue must give way to the discipline of the law. The Nigeria Trademarks Act is not silent on these issues in the creative territory. By virtue of the Trademarks Act, questions of ownership and control have been clearly answered. Delving into section 5 of the Nigeria Trademarks Act, it is clearly seen that it states, the registered proprietor of a trademark has the exclusive right to use that mark and to restrain unauthorized use in the course of trade. Section 9 further clarifies what is capable of protection including names signatures and distinctive marks that have acquired commercial identity. When a character name such as Papa Ajasco has been fixed within commerce and protected within this framework the law recognizes one owner, not multiple sentiments. What follows from this is straightforward. A performer cannot in law convert visibility into proprietorship. The fact that an actor has become widely associated with a role does not create a parallel right to commercially exploit that identity outside the authority of the trademark owner. At best the performer retains rights in his performance where applicable but not in the underlying mark. The structure of the Act does not support such a leap and the courts have consistently leaned toward protecting the integrity of registered rights.
It must also be said clearly that the inability of a performer to continue using a trademarked character independently is not evidence of injustice. It is the natural consequence of how intellectual property is designed to function. The law protects origin not association and further rewards creation and structured ownership not subsequent popularity. To argue otherwise is to invite a breakdown of the very system that gives creative works their commercial value. This is why the suggestion that a performer has been prevented from using a role to advance his career must be approached with caution. The law has only drawn a boundary around what does not belong to a performer, not a foreclosure of the performer’s growth. Careers are not built on a single character unless one has secured ownership of that character. Many actors have stepped out of defining roles to build independent identities precisely because they understood this limitation from the outset.
Ultimately the law is not an emotional belt designed for use by public sentimental positions of people, neither is it a tool to validate disappointment or to redistribute rights based on sympathy. It is a structured system grounded in statutes, principles and precedents and within that system the position remains firm. Ownership of a trademarked character rests with the creator or registered proprietor and no performer can appropriate that ownership by virtue of having played the role. The sooner this is understood the better positioned the industry will be to avoid these recurring disputes and to engage with intellectual property not as an afterthought but as the foundation of every creative enterprise.